Ron Paul Ad (in Debates)

Regardless of the more out there things Ron Paul has said over the years, I happen to really like the guy. He is one of the few people in politics that I can actually look at and feel like he is sincere in what he says. Unfortunately he'll likely never be looked at as a serious candidate.

As for the ad itself, I thought it was a very good comparison to our current situation over in the middle east, as well as other places we've occupied in the past.

Anyway, thumbs up, I enjoyed the video.

Woohoo for taking new marketing in politics up a notch!

Now those about "states rights" issues... isn't protecting citizens
from unconstitutional laws at the state level exactly what the Federal Government is supposed to be doing?

Yea,

I think we really should have left Afghanistan after we bombed the Taliban. They would never have regrouped, and then never tried even harder to get nuclear weapons to use on American soil. Radical people are very reasonable once you sit down and try to reason with them. They listen to logical discussion and see the points of a free Democratic society (sarcasm alert!!).

Ron Paul is a crock.

There would never be troops in the US because the US does not kill civilians in the name of God or Allah or anyone else.

The US never used mustard gas on its own people with the goal of suppressing their voice. We never unleashed nerve toxin in a subway to get attention.

This video would be a great commercial for the new Red Dawn film. But a political ad? Made me laugh,.

It's a few years back, but the bulldozing of the veterans encampments outside Washington did actually happen.

So what does the US kill civilians in the name of?

I never read or heard of that. Can you link something for me please?


We try our hardest to never kill civilians. We never go in without cause to kill civilians. We are trying to get the terrorists who are going after our civilians.

But we can have this debate if you want in a debate thread.

This ad, however, gave me a great belly laugh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army

I mentioned it only because a false image of perfection is one of the things that keeps folks from seeing the perspective of the brothers we call the enemy.

I didn't ask why we intentionally kill civilians, although there are certainly instances of individuals doing that from our ranks. It's the idea that killing innocents accidentally in the name of a cause is any different than killing them intentionally in name of one I'm not sure about...

Interesting article, thanks for the link. I learned something new today.

However, I do not see how that pertains to this discussion. What the veterans did was probably illegal and almost a mob type mentality. The USG likely did use excessive force but that was over 75 years ago.

We can also discussion the internment of Asians during WWII as another example.

I have no in-depth knowledge of the candidates so wouldn't presume to have an opinion on any, but I defy anyone to argue against the fact that the United States has given up the moral high ground that it used to occupy as an international leader. Until a new attitude and approach is adopted I fear things will never improve.

Good advert. Unfortunately I don't believe a single word uttered by fickle politicians these days. They'll say whatever they need to say to appeal to the audience of the moment.

Ron Paul (from what I've seen) isn't particularly fickle... which is one of the reasons he has no chance of getting elected... ever.

They use pepper spray and batons instead.

On the issue of Ron Paul, there are a lot of things I like about him. I like his honestly and consistency, and I think there is no better candidate on either side when it comes to personal liberties. On other matters, such as economics and the role of the federal government vs state government, he's incredibly naive. I'd pick him over any other Republican, but almost any Democrat over him.

And his supporters cheered for poor people to die. Screw everything about that.

How are they suppose to respond to rioters?

Not the same way they respond to peaceful protestors.

Ahh I didn't see this part. I'm assuming you're ok with it for like a violent riot or something right? And if we're talking about the wallstreet fiasco, weren't there a bunch of cops injured, which kind of proves it was a little violent?

The Wallsteet "fiasco"? I see where your bias stands.

I have seen several reports of police acting inappropriately. Like "Tony Baloney" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Bologna

Other videos, including one where a woman doing nothing violent is clubbed by a police baton as well. Stuff like this surfaces all the time.

Here's more: http://occupywallst.org/article/reports-pepper-spray/
Yes, it's from the same site as that stupid demands list. Irrelevant.

I have no feelings on either side, I've been really busy, and have heard practically no news other than what I see pop up for 10 seconds as my browser starts. I simply called it a fiasco, b/c cops and innocent civilians getting hurt is a fiasco. Harming innocent civilians is wrong, as is violent protesting, that's where I stand.

How about we wait for an official investigation before we try Officer Bologna in the court of public opinion?

And do you want me to post pictures of people defecating on police cars?

I am sure the NYPD would rather be fighting real crime than babysitting a mob that disobeys the law.

Have you seen the pictures of how the are trashing the public areas in NYC?

Because we all know how well that goes.

I think I can do without. I think I speak for everyone else as well. Thanks.

What does that have anything to do with cops clubbing and spraying protestors and journalists? Anything to defame the left's version of the tea party, right Ranger?

LOL! So, what do you suggest, fire him and ruin his career without one?

I suppose you think we should let criminals off without trials too? Or put people in jail on hearsay?

Strange in that no arrests were madevor needed for tea party events. There was no trashing of the public areas aftervtea party events.

However, in the OWS gathering police have already had to use pepper spray and batons. The common areas are trashed. I can show pictures if you like. Nobody from the tea party took a dump on a police car.

If this is the lefts version of the tea party, I am glad I lean right.

I am sure there are people who believe in what they are doing. But now it seems more like a mob mentality. No direction. No cohesive demands. Just hooligans.

That is not what I suggested, so you can knock it off with the condescending "LOL."

Now you're just acting stupid.

http://washingtonindependent.com/66799/police-arrest-10-tea-partiers-outside-pelosi-office

But now that we have a group going after the rich and connected, it's funny how suddenly the cops take such an interest in keeping the peace.

Still, the actions of a few yahoos, on either side, do nothing to discredit the aims of the protesters. How very typical of you to attempt exactly that when it's the left's turn to speak up.

Long-term karma is a <self-PG-redacted-word>.
You DO know that the vast majority of problems the USofA has in the Middle East can be almost directly traced back to something the USA has had a direct or indirect hand in pushing to happen, don't you ?
Sure, not always the government, sometimes private enterprises, but still.

Thats ridiculous. The problems in the middle east stem from religion, as evidenced by thousands of years of turmoil in that region. (The U.S. has only been around for ~235 years.)

Great ad. (b'.')b

I do see the locations and directions of the anger for the tea party and OWS to be key if we really are arguing who is the more dangerous mob.
Teabags hate just about everyone not of them and occasionally rant from open DC sidewalks like homeless nutjobs. Which might certainly be true to have as much time as a hippie on hand to make those fantastic signs.
Those squat-the-rich hippies are doing a long term sit-in within a stone throw of the faceless they hate for hours on end. Some stoners aren't entirely in on what the cause is as some could point out. Cause that's how hippies are. Those that are in heart and soul have a very acute hate which does infect the nearby stoners. They feel stepped on, which some literally were I hope, and overlooked in a well populated area of New York with expensive surrounding objects.
Practically the breeding ground for a riot though both groups are comparative preaching street looneys. It's more a scenario difference than a belief difference for law enforcement when you take in the bigger picture. Don't forget you also have the random passerby instigator.
There is also an age and maturity issue separating the two rather than a political ideology issue. Most teabags know pooping on a cop car hurts the cause and requires climbing. Or a fork lift. Low blow aside, both sides have the crazed radicals. Both also know pitching a stink loaf on a cop's hood is frat boy stupid, so I can't see such gross public actions of the silly as the product of a republican or liberal state of mind. Nor should anyone else here.

Made my day.

Pit, the US army took the job of Saudi guardians when Osama came back from his victory against the USSR. Seeing hot blonde babes in desert camo might have affected his ego more than his religious temperament.

Religion is still the reason he would resent us for our bikinis ;)

+1 Pit.

You do know that prior to 1910 the holy land was a peaceful mix of Arabs of multiple religions, Jews and Christians... it was British interventionism and the Zionism that followed (backed by the English Lords with an eye towards oil) that began the saga. The notion that it's always been a giant mess is horse crap.

It is like the Crusades never happened.

You really want to go that far back?
Think about what the rest of Europe looked like back then...

Blaming religion for what are geopolitical and educational issues isn't any way to help the situation. Russia and the US have a hell of lot more to do with what the Afghan people have gone through than Islam.

You do know the crusades were when Europeans went into the region right? It was the 'western' world imposing their will in the area (or trying to), not the scourge of Islam raiding the peaceful western world.

Anyway, I was taught long ago that constants do not explain variation. Iraq has pretty much been Islamic since the US came into existence, so the lack of conflict (historically) between the two regions seems to suggest that your religion explanation is, well, misguided.

But sure, blame the fact the the Muslims hate America, I'm sure if the creation of the state Israel and the discovery of oil have in no way impacted the situation.

+2 Loch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_the_Near_East

Also you do know that the crusades happened after Islamic attacks on Italy. Neither side is blameless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam_in_southern_Italy

Loch, I was not blaming Islam in particular, I would have said that. I was blaming religion in general.

On the note of Iraq hasn't had problems with us from inception of the U.S. to 1900~ or so is due to logistics. Before modern communications and cheap travel the people's of both sides were very isolated from each other. With the modern advent of telecommunications and cheap travel the vast cultural differences (largely caused by religion) have become apparent to everyone.

While we (referring to us in the thread) may be tolerant of differences (though given some of the debates recently that may be debatable ;)) I think a good majority of the world's people are not leading to a lot of conflicts.

click

I was not aware the USA being a direct geographic neighbour to the Middle East... when did that happen exactly again ?

Also, remind me, who exactly trained the Al Qaeda in the first place ? Was it not the USA ? Ayup, it was. To fight the Rusians.
Who was to blame for the Shah of Iran ? Sure, it was first the Brits and the Russians at the end of WWII, but the USA stuck a big hand in it, replacing all Russian influence soon enough.
Saddam Hussein's rise to power ? Quite a few people claim the USA was no stranger to that either.
Oh, and remember that little state with a disproportionately huge army that didn't exist as a Hebrew state at all before WWII ? Again, it might have been the Brits to blame for the start of it all, but hey, who was the largest (overwhelmingly so) supporter of it throughout most of its history, in spite of their usual "in your face, Muslims" attitude ? Oh, my, what a coincidence, could it possibly be it was the USA ?

Poke a whole colony of hornet's nests long enough and hard enough with sufficient sticks and it will eventually spew out enough swarms of angry things that just want you dead.
On a scale of 1 to 10, just how monumentally evil would you say USofA foreign policy with regards to the Middle East has been for the past, oh, say, 60 years or thereabouts ?

What, no comment to that ?

Yes, I have a comment. Good post.

History has a wonderful sense or ironic humor when it comes to imperialism. Yet the US keeps playing "world police" with a military budget greater than the rest of the world combined and six times greater than the nearest spender.

No one answered on Bast's budget thread, but maybe someone can tell me here: what are we defending against that we need to spend more than the rest of the world combined?

Bonus question: In spending that amount, and sticking thumbs in many, many pies, aren't we doing as much damage as we do good? I don't have any answers on how isolated or non-isolated we should be, so please, treat these as questions for discussion, not incendiary devices of any sort. Please?

it probably has something to do with the fact that diplomacy is rarely chosen as a desirable super-hero power. ; )

Heh, just too dang much Kryptonite in the world that can relegate the power of Diplomacy into dust?

Or "diplomacy" just doesn't have the power it did back when you could marry into somebody else's royalty, guaranteeing one generation of peace or power play.

"no comment to that?"

You did not refute anything I said, just listed some questionable actions done by the US. You initially said that our problems with the middle east was our own fault.

There has been a lot of turmoil in that region before we ever got involved. Given their devotion to their religion, vast cultural differences, the sheer amount of fighting, and their intolerance shown by all of the aforementioned fighting; to say that we would not have had issues with that region is disingenuous at best. We surely made it worse but we would have had issues with that region regardless of those actions.

True, look at all the the problems Japan has with the middle east.

That's kind of the whole point.
While relations would not have been very cordial, you certainly would NOT have had a problem with any of them.
Count the many Christian-oriented states in the world.
Now count those that have a significant problem with people from the Middle East.
Then count out those that ONLY have any problems at all ever since they sent peacekeeping troops as a show of support to the USA after they invaded Iraq/Afghanistan.
I'm waiting.


Issues, maybe.
The same way I have issues with a dog barking on the other side of a fence.
But not problems.
As in, getting bit in the leg I have stuck through a fence by a dog on the other side, then getting chased by the same dog as he comes out through the hole in the fence I left pulling my leg out.

If we had no dealings in that region whatsoever, you would be right. However, thats unlikely due to our great dependency on oil.

To take a page out of your debate book, "you did not refute anything I said".

Here's a thought about the dependency on oil : one can actually BUY the stuff on the open market, you don't need to screw with the internal politics of half the region nor wage expensive wars to get any of it.
What's that you say, you actually want it cheaper than the market would set its price to ? Hmm, I wonder just how cheap it is after you figure in the price of the wars themselves and many other hidden costs.
And what's the big deal with the need for so much oil ? To feed a huge military ? Which you need to militarily secure even more oil ? That sounds awfully circular to me.
It's not like you'd die if gas prices would be higher - heck, the UK manages just fine with prices hovering around the equivalent of 8 USD/gallon after conversion without crumbling economically (not significantly more than the USA already is), so what's the big deal with this "dependency on oil" thing anyway ?

Let's face it, the Middle East is not angry at the USA mainly due to religious reasons, but due to economic/political/military reasons.
Basically, the USA has been acting like a slightly subtle schoolyard bully hinting at pretty much everybody from the Middle East that it would be best to buy him lunch every now and then (or else he'd use any excuse he gets to make your life miserable without getting directly in trouble) and acts all surprised when some of them kick him in the shins for it when they get a chance.

I do think it has to be said that comparing the USA to just any other Christian nation (or any nation, for that matter) doesn't _quite_ tell the whole picture. In any relationship, the aspects of the USA being the "biggest" and the "haves" must be considered, in my opinion.

I'm not saying that some countries hate us ONLY because of our perceived wealth, food, lifestyle, etc, but it certainly is a part of it. I don't think it is quite fair to compare us to, say, Finland, and say, "See? Finland isn't as hated, what the heck!" Finland simply hasn't been on the radar as much, past or present.

That being said, I think that might be part of my original defense question: I wouldn't mind being more like Finland in an "off the radar" regard. I'm not saying go full-on isolationist. I'm saying turn the focus inward a little. Cranking things back a bit would seem wise, especially considering the two wars we are in involving somewhat nebulous results and end-games. Yes, we got Hussein and yes we got bin Laden. Beyond that, though, it would appear force has gone as far as it can (something the Soviets also learned about Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989).

To put the whole question another way, if you were the CEO of a corporation, and you spent 20% of your budget on something, wouldn't the ROI have to be pretty outstanding to justify that out-lay? For some perspective, Pfizer spent about 16.5% of revenue (not really a "budget" in such a beast, so I'll use percentage of rev.) in one of their bigger R&D years. R&D is the life-blood of a drug company (well, I suppose marketing is becoming a larger and larger angle too, from all the ads I see) with obvious (albeit speculative) ROI -- new drugs that can potentially rake in millions of dollars.

What's the ROI on military spending? More specifically, is spending as much as the rest of the world combined on the military necessary to achieve that return?

Finland spends something like 3 billion euros (about 4 billion, US) on their military. I know they are a very different beast, including the fact they conscript, but even if you adjust for population (we have around 60 times more people), that would come out to 240 billion -- meaning we still spend three times as much.

Actually I was referring to consumer car use, we are one of the highest car per capita in the world. Also due to the size and population density there is higher commercial oil use as well.

I also said nothing about needing lower costs on oil. Buying oil from some sheikh on the "open" market there is all some groups in the middle east would need to start hostilities toward the U.S.

In today's climate, maybe.
If USA would have just have kept out of it, extremely doubtful.
And you still haven't counted countries.

If this is going to turn into a debate, can we please move it to the debate forum... there's a reason I blocked that forum.

done. if i ever miss any for moving let me know please.

Great, now someone can maybe finally address my military expenditure question! *smile* It's only about the 3rd or 4th time I've brought it up!

Well, depends on how cynical your outlook on humanity, human society or the USA in particular might be.
The most cynical (and still somewhat realistic) outlook of it all would be something like this : democracy is nothing more than a popularity contest where votes are indirectly bought via advertising, people are lazy narcisistic slobs that don't really give a damn about anybody else but the close circle of friends (if even them) unless it will directly affect them negatively (guilt works too, to some degree), and everything derives from that.
Mechanism being something like - people in power need to please those with financial power while appeasing the masses, which means profits for people with cash and comfort for the rest, which means having to exploit people OUTSIDE your own country more than those inside your own (not necessarily in the traditional historical sense, but merely economically), which means you need to scare others into not rising up to demand their own rights to equal treatment, which means a disproportionately large military spending, which makes it so you need more exploitation of outsiders to sustain it, and it's a vicious circle.